Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

How Was Evolutionism Created?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Where did evolution come from? The minds of men. But Darwin (who was not a great scientist — his only degree was in theology) plagiarized others, including his grandfather Erasmus. Various proposals of evolution cropped up throughout history, and it can be found in ancient pagan Greek religious beliefs. People seem to be desperate to find excuses to deny the Creator his rightful place.

Science was the province of Christians, who established scientific methodologies. Unfortunately, with the geology of Lyell (a lawyer), Hutton and others in the 1800s, plus bold pronouncements that the Bible is wrong or misunderstood, the one-sided rewriting of history, science and theology had begun.

A press release titled “The Evolution of Creationism” in a geology journal is just asking for a spoof.
The Geological Society of America (GSA) posted the following press release on its publication, GSA Today:

Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and how it has changed over time. This curiosity has produced a rich legacy of science and philosophy and impacted and influenced religion and theology. In the November 2012 issue of GSA Today, David Montgomery of the University of Washington examines both the history of geology and of biblical views regarding Earth’s origins.

Montgomery’s main premise is that throughout most of the past several hundred years, scientists and theologians engaged in extensive collaboration regarding issues like Earth’s age and origin. The common bond that sustained this rich exchange of ideas was a respect for reason and a trust in the scientific process.

As modern science evolved, so did many shared questions and struggles regarding how to best understand Earth’s age as well as how new scientific findings harmonized with or conflicted with theological understanding as conveyed in works such as the Bible. These questions and struggles persist into the present, most notably in geology, where vast differences in the answers to such fundamental questions as “how old is this planet?” both correlate and contrast with some religious beliefs.

You can read the rest of the press release, the commentary and the parody, at "The Creation of Evolutionism".

An Example of Evolutionary Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Biases. Preconceptions. Presuppositions. We all have them. It's all a part of being human. The belief that scientists are completely dispassionate, assembling data and following where the evidence leads is very naive. Evolutionists have already decided that evolution is true, and that makes it much more difficult for them to accept the evidence that refutes evolutionism and affirms creation. Their belief system heavily influences their interpretations of the data — often with absurd results.

Are scientists always objective? Do they always interpret the evidence with an open mind? Some time ago I experienced first-hand how a scientist’s beliefs affect the way he looks at the evidence.

Whilst a geology student at university, I needed to identify a fossil. After consulting the Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils I had tentatively identified it as a belemnite of the genus Hibolites. However, paleontology was not my specialty so I sought advice from an expert.

The research paleontologist at one of the major universities in our state was the obvious choice.

You can finish reading "Fossil flip-flop", here.

Audio Saturday: Dobzhansky's Deception

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

In an earlier post, the claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was shown to be a false claim. Now we can examine how Dobzhansky's article was bad science and worse religion. Bob Enyart was published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly, and his radio show did a four-part discussion of the paper.

Here is a hint on where you look for the free audio on each page (click picture for more bigness):

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.
Part 4 is here.

Next week, I'll go back to a much shorter audio.

Do the Math - Cicadas Did

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Magicicada: Wikipedia/Bruce Marlin

Although I am reluctant to bug you with this, but it is about time for the 17-year periodic "Magicicada" to appear. Would you like to hear them? Good.

After 17 years and when the temperature is 64 degrees Fahrenheit, they burrow up from the ground in huge numbers to wreak vengeance upon the living. All right, so the part about vengeance is exaggerated, but it does sound like a kind of science fiction or horror movie device, what with waiting for the right time, temperature and all. It is eminently logical to see that they are the product of a Master Designer, but people foolishly give undue credit to evolution.

Entomologists study insects and spiders. They regularly discover examples of mathematical genius hardwired into various tiny-brained arthropods. And as young students know all too well, math doesn't come easy.

Science writer Seth Borenstein recently wrote an AP article describing why residents of the United States' east coast anticipate an impending insect invasion—at least in rural areas. This spring marks 17 years since a particular brood of a unique kind of red-eyed cicada, called "magicicada," last emerged en masse. And yes, the name reflects the way these insects seem to "magically" appear at the same time after 17 years of living underground as larvae. When the ground temperature reaches precisely 64 degrees, magicicadas in "Brood II" will tunnel upward, crawl up the side of a nearby tree or structure, squeeze out of their molted exoskeletons and then fly around each in search of a mate.

When Brood II emerges together, some estimate they will number up to a trillion cicadas. Of course, their onboard precision-computing equipment makes this all possible. Some kind of internal miniscule chronometer precisely measures the passage of years, and a tiny thermometer monitors the soil temperature. These nifty devices would be useless unless they had the ability to communicate—according to appropriately engineered software—with a central processor. Only then can the organism attach meaning to the data input, and act accordingly.

To finish reading, you can fly over to "Cicadas Make Great Mathematicians".

The Word about the First Bird

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

fws.gov

A new candidate for the first bird that allegedly evolved is in the limelight. Not only is there doubt that the critter is actually a bird, but there is another problem: archaeopteryx. Although this failed "transitional form" has been classified as a true bird, some evolutionists tenaciously cling to the idea that it was something else. The timeline of bird evolution has to be rearranged yet again — unless the new guy is not real, then they can continue with their existing chaos of bird evolution guesswork.

Feathers are ruffled in the evolutionary community because the newest candidate for the world’s first bird upsets the currently popular claim that Archaeopteryx was not a bird at all. Pascal Godefroit and colleagues can only achieve bird-status for their non-feathered fossil if the slightly “younger” and clearly feathered Archaeopteryx can be called a bird. While evolutionists worldwide argue over just how the evolutionary history of birds should be adjusted this time, some seek to snatch victory from the jaws of inconsistencies by proclaiming that the fuzziness of dinosaur-bird definitions actually proves that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The conundrum concerns the chicken-sized Aurornis xui. Aurornis is said to have originated in Liaoning province's Tiaojishan Formation. Aurornis was found by a farmer, acquired by a fossil dealer, and sold to Yizhou Fossil & Geology Park. Since the scandalous appearance of the Chinese “Archaeoraptor,” a forged feathered dinosaur that National Geographic in their November 1999 magazine hailed as the dinosaur-bird “missing link,” paleontologists analyzing fossils obtained from Chinese farmers and fossil dealers often include in their papers a statement declaring faith in their fossil’s authenticity. The article in Nature concerning Aurornis—whose Latin name means “dawn-bird”—contains just such a statement of authenticity in its supplementary materials. Nevertheless, the fossil is so perfect that some have suggested that Aurornis is a forgery.

To finish reading, you can migrate to "Is the Dawn of the Early Bird Too Good To Be True?"

How Do You Prove Evolution is True? Manipulate the Data, of Course!

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Despite the attempts of the Evo Sith to "explain" evolution, when the data are examined by people who are not trying to influence people to believe the evolutionist worldview, the actual facts come to light. The "Tree of Life" is still tenaciously grasped, even though it should have been discarded years ago. DNA analysis? Well, be disingenuous and filter the data. Then, fiddle with it. When there isn't a creationist or ID proponent around to call you on it, then present it as "truth". (Of course, when the dishonesty and bad reasoning are pointed out, the whistle-blowers are told, "You're a liar!", or, "You don't understand evolution!" They keep using that word "liar"... We know more than those people want to believe, and we don't like being played for fools.) They'll persist in believing their failed evolutionary worldview, even though it is full of errors, conjecture, guesswork and fraud.

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.

You can finish reading "Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070", here.

Blasting Cambrian Explosion Explanations

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

We are constantly being told that the fossils prove evolution. However, even though many ambiguous fossils are put forth as "transitional forms", knowledgeable paleontologists admit that they do not exist, despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders. In addition, the "Cambrian Explosion" (where fossils of all major groups of animals alive today, and many that became extinct) has been a falsifier for Darwinism since Papa Darwin published his speculations; evolution should have been discarded for lack of evidence shortly after it was popularized.

stock.xchng/dyet

The facts do not stop people from believing, however. People believe in evolution despite the evidence, and, with an attitude that is contrary to science, will refer to Darwin deniers as "liars" (possibly because they are terrified that they will realize that there is a Creator and they are accountable after all) and give "Science of the Gaps" excuses.

The "problem" of the Cambrian Explosion is no problem at all for biblical creationists, because a sudden appearance without transitional forms in the fossil record is predicted by Noachian Flood models. Still, evolutionists try (and fail) to offer plausible explanations. God forbid (heh!) that you hear the truth.

An intelligent design advocate is publishing a book this month that uses the Cambrian Explosion as evidence against Darwinism and for I.D. Two major evolutionary paleontologists have also published a book about the issue.

Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt, is officially released next week. Chapter 4 will tell about the uproar caused at the University of Oklahoma in 2009 when Meyer and Wells scheduled a panel discussion after a showing of Illustra’s film Darwin’s Dilemma about the Cambrian fossil record. Darwinists at the university attempted a pre-emptive strike by issuing announcements that the event was religiously motivated. In the Q&A, though, the university’s professors and museum curators could not produce any unambiguous fossil as a credible ancestor to any of the Cambrian animals. Meyer’s book, updated with the latest findings since then, examines all the putative fossil ancestors and evolutionary exlanations for the Cambrian explosion, and assesses the issue’s relevance to the Darwin-ID debate.

Meanwhile, two leading evolutionary paleontologists have just come out with a pro-evolution book about the sudden appearance of virtually all animal phyla at the base of the Cambrian. Written by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, experts on the Cambrian fossil record, the new work, The Cambrian Explosion The Construction of Animal Biodiversity, was reviewed by Christpher J. Lowe (Stanford) in Science Magazine this week: “What Led to Metazoa’s Big Bang?” was his suggestive headline. His first paragraph states the problem in such a way as to furrow the brows of Darwinists and make creationists or ID advocates grin, “We told you so.”

Unless you're petrified, you can read the rest of "Cambrian Explosion: Evolutionists Have No Answers", here.

Lunar Magnetism Further Refutes Evolutionary Cosmology

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

stock.xchng/raven2663

Cosmologists have their presuppositions about the age of the universe. When the observed data persist in troubling their beliefs, they do not abandon their erroneous ideas. Instead, they are "challenged" and try to explain the facts with unworkable conjectures. Biblical creationists do not have anywhere near the same amount of difficulties with their models.

The story of the rise and fall of the moon's magnetic field constantly energizes planetary scientists. Simply put, under secular magnetism models, the moon is too small to have maintained its charge as long as evolutionists imagine and as strongly as its magnetic clues indicate. Secular scientists face a grave challenge in reconciling the moon's magnetic signatures with billion-year age assignments.

The latest foray into this collection of highly charged lunar dilemmas resulted in a team of scientists selecting a solution that, in the end, still failed to fit all the facts.

And here are a few of these relevant facts from the article, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

The moon has a feeble magnetic field today.

Moon rocks retrieved by the Apollo missions contain remanent magnetism that records an ancient lunar magnetic field that was once as strong as the earth's is today.

The most popular secular theory attempting to explain planetary magnetism involves a dynamo caused by differentially rotating molten fluids near the core. But the fact is such a dynamo would wear down millions of years before the age assignments evolutionists attach to the moon's days of high magnetic field strength.

To find out the difficulties with these ideas, you can finish reading "The Moon's Latest Magnetic Mysteries", here.

Audio Saturday: Evidence for God

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

NASA/JPL-Caltech

"Prove to me that God exists!", some people demand.

"What kind of proof will you accept?"

"Scientific!"

"In other words, you want evidence for God that fit your materialistic presuppositions, even though you already know that God exists. But there's a problem with that. This is a logical fallacy called a 'category mistake'. You cannot use the scientific method and materialistic ideas to prove the existence of God who, by definition, is not material and is outside of time and space. But there's a much easier way. Just look around".

Beauty and Design in Nature Testifies of the Creator

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

"Malicious Advice Mallard" gives malicious advice.

Some people relish their intellectual and spiritual blindness. They say, "Prove to me that God exists!", or, "Give me evidence for creation!" The simplest approach is to simply look at nature. The amazing beauty, design, complexity and wonder — it is astonishing that some people are willing to suspend their own sensibilities to pretend that God does not exist, and indulge in the ever-changing whims of evolutionary philosophies.

I'm going to send you to a Web page that has comments and several short videos (the last video is the longest, just over eight minutes) on the wonder and complexity of nature. You'll be amazed when you read and watch at "Beauty is Truth and Truth, Beauty. The remarkable creatures designed by God reveal the tragedy of Charles Darwin's foul hypothesis! It has drained from the propagandized an appreciation for the Creator's art ..."

The Derping of Humanity — It's Genetic

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Yeah, I know. My title and the picture will be out of date soon. A better title would be, "The Dumbing Down of Humanity is a Genetic Thing", but it's less interesting.

I believe that everything is running downhill in a kind of societal entropy, an increase in negativity. More immorality, profanity, dishonesty. Businesses are ruining themselves by being downright cheap, sacrificing quality products and customer service for a few more grotzits. Spirituality is becoming more touchy-feely and less committed to truth. Scientists are more passionate about promoting evolution than accurately dealing with the scientific evidence. Some speculate that stupidity is a product of biological evolution, so there is no hope for humanity. Many folks assume that people in ancient times were less intelligent. However, a look at the Bible writers helps demonstrate that such a claim is the opposite of the truth.

But I digress.

The subject at hand is that people are getting more stupider. (Increasing stupidity in humanity explains a lot of things, but I'll digress again.) I'm not talking about the occasional lapse or "brain fade", we all have times where we're just not thinking well.

What I'm talking about is a general ongoing condition with a genetic basis. Those of us who are assured of the Creator's plans do not need to worry about evolution's dead ends, though.

Do today’s children have lower IQs than yesterday’s? Yes, according to measurements of intellectual and emotional strength gathered from different countries and contexts. The results show the same basic decline and resist the notion that public or other forms of education are to blame. Could the cause instead lie within?

Stanford University professor Gerald Crabtree thinks so. He published a pair of essays in the journal Trends in Genetics, citing new discoveries that show why the human intellect is “surprisingly fragile.” This biblical creation-friendly notion didn’t sit well with the authors of a rebuttal paper, who countered that the human intellect is “robust.” What lies at the heart of this disagreement—bad science or bad assumptions?

Crabtree identified two fundamental processes as the main culprits. First, human intelligence uses neurons, and these cells can only function properly if their genes stay in top shape. Second, these genes are susceptible to degradation. This loss of organization occurs continually as mutations slowly, irreversibly garble genes, and the resulting errors pile up and are not corrected.

It would be smart of you to finish reading "Is Mankind Getting Dumber?" You can supplement your knowledge by also reading, "People Not Quite As Clever Anymore". Else, derp.

If There's A Consensus, Does That Mean Something Is True?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:30:00 +0000

"Scientists agree..." "There is a scientific consensus..."

Those of us involved in presenting the truth of creation science and refuting evolution hear phrases like this quite often. They are usually proffered as an excuse to avoid hearing or considering evidence against their erroneous worldviews and presuppositions. Doing so is an attempt to shut down discussion by appealing to authority or the majority. This is counterproductive not only to a discussion, but to scientific advancement.

Does this mean that they're right — and that they remain right?

True scientists will consider the facts, revising their theories. They even discard them (except for evolution, which must be protected at all costs). There are times when the consensus is wrong and the paradigm must be changed.

Whenever you hear “all scientists agree” or “we now know,” it’s no guarantee a finding won’t be disputed years later. In the following examples, CEH focuses not so much on the content of the disputed subjects as the implications for philosophy of science.

The big warmup: One very strong consensus among establishment scientists right now is that humans are causing global warming. Science Daily reported a survey of 4,000 abstracts of scientific papers that indicated an “overwhelming consensus among scientists,” as high as 97%, “that recent warming is human-caused” (cf. fallacy of statistics). Yet contrary data still arise from time to time. For instance, New Scientist reported that re-analysis of global temperatures over the last decade shows that “Earth will warm more slowly over this century than we thought it would” – diminishing some of the frantic appeals for immediate action of past years. Apparently the rate of heating hit a plateau even with more greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. It doesn’t change the consensus; the new data are just “buying us a little more time to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and prevent dangerous climate change,” the article continued. Likewise, PhysOrg spun the new data to mean that we still face a “Dire outlook despite global warming ‘pause’,” according to the study published in Nature Geoscience. Skeptics of global warming like to point out that a few decades ago, the consensus warned that Earth was approaching a period of global cooling that would have drastic effects on human life.

What will the consensus believe about climate change in a few years or decades? Nobody knows. It’s instructive, though, to look at other examples of shifting consensus in science.

Yes, by all means, let's take a look at some further examples at "Scientists Can Agree on Things that Aren’t So".

Scepticus Ad Absurdum, or, Ridiculous Skepticism

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

And now for something completely different. Sort of.

We have seen that "skeptics" are often caricatures of themselves, cynically finding any possible way to bolster their evolutionary worldview and find excuses to disregard evidence for creation. Some people who call themselves "skeptics" are being dishonest with that name, as they are not open to any explanations or evidence other than what they want to see.

The article that I am going to link was given to me by a friend. It is not exactly sympathetic to Intelligent Design or to creation science. Their primary focus is on the skeptical debunkers of the paranormal. The site is called "Skeptical Investigations", and they are "skeptical about skeptics", promoting objectivity in scientific investigation. This article has several points in which ultra-skeptic atheist and evolutionists are guilty; these people often act in an irrational manner, and go against the spirit of true scientific inquiry.

The progress of science depends on a finely tuned balance between open-mindedness and skepticism. Be too open minded, and you'll accept wrong claims. Be too skeptical, and you'll reject genuine new discoveries. Proper skepticism must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Unfortunately, much of what comes out of the "skeptical" community these days is not proper skepticism, but all-out, fundamentalist disbelief. Such skepticism can be called pseudo-skepticism, pathological skepticism or bogus skepticism.
Here are the warning signs of bogus skepticism.

You can believe that this article is not only real, but makes some good points, and it would be a good idea to finish reading "Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism".

Can an Educated Creationist Do Science?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Is it possible for someone to enter a secular university with biblical (young earth) creationist views and not have to compromise or have his or her belief system replaced with evolutionism?

Jason Petersen of Answers for Hope interviewed Jessica Roberts. She has degrees, including her recent bachelor's in Molecular Biology, and has a master's in health science. Quite often, we have "educators" that want to belittle, intimidate, obfuscate and more to their students so they can protect their fundamentally flawed worldview. (Of course, true science and true education require actually examining the evidence.) Jessica's experience echoes many of the things creationists encounter. For her, the stakes were higher than just dealing with someone who wants to be contentious. But things went better than might be expected.

The interview is in two parts, written and video.

Here is the written portion of the interview:

1. Why are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I am a Young Earth Creationist b/c I believe this is the most consistent view with what the Bible teaches and I see it as the most compatible with the evidence creation offers us today. When Scripture and science are laid out side by side they correlate splendidly well. If I could find no proof on earth today for evidence of rapid decay via a world-wide global flood that matched with the account in the Bible of Noah’s Flood, then I would be hard-pressed to believe in the literal 6-day time frame of creation as it so naturally reads in Genesis. (Although I will admit my faith would tenaciously hold on to it, albeit perhaps not as brazenly, because I have seen in other arenas of scrutiny that the Bible stands the test of time eventually once archaeology and science “catch up.”) But thankfully, I can boldly declare I am a Young Earth Creationist because of the ample testimony God has given us in this world He created, if we would but shut our mouths long enough to let our eyes see the truth.

2. As a Young Earth Creationist that was studying molecular Biology, did you feel pressured to reject creation in favor of evolution in class? If so, can you provide some examples?

Not so fast, Nellie. To read the rest, and to see the video part of the interview, you need to visit "Questioning Evolution: Jason Petersen interviews a creationist graduate from the University of Central Florida".

Audio Saturday: Some Evolutionists Didn't Get the Memo

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 10:17:00 +0000

Every once in a while, people encounter enthusiastic but ill-informed evolutionists who claim, "We have the facts!" No, you do not. It is not a matter of "your facts" compared to "our facts", because a fact is a fact. The important part, and where the disputes happen, is in the interpretation of the facts. And sometimes, evolutionists seem to "find" their own "facts" through too-hasty scientific investigation (or even fraud) that turn out to be quite different than what the world was originally told. Unfortunately, they are confident that they have the truth, and evangelize their false truth of the Gospel of Darwin, based on non-science. They are not entitled to their own "facts", nor are they entitled to define reality based on what they consider to be facts. Some Christians are fooled by the confident pronouncements of bad evidence. We can tell them where to find the truth, if they'll actually listen (or read it).

Today's audio is about two minutes long. The screen shot tells you where to click so you can listen or download for free. Click here for the broadcast and script.

Want to Learn Camouflage? Study the Squid!

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 31 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

NOAA.gov

Behold the lowly squid. Yon sea beastie is able to rapidly blend in with its surroundings to escape predators — and it's colorblind. Since humans like to study the work of the Creator (but seldom give proper credit) and learn the secrets of their success, the United States Navy wants to know how squids can camouflage themselves so quickly.

Cephalopods—the group of mollusks that includes squid, octopus and cuttlefish—are famous for their amazing ability to blend quickly into their surroundings. Now the US Office of Naval Research is funding research in several universities into man-made materials that have the same instant camouflage properties.

On land, the chameleon has a most ingenious colour-changing system. But the colour changes are caused by hormones that travel through their blood system. Cephalopods change colour through their nervous system, so they adjust much faster—in only a second or two.

Their skin has the same sort of light-sensitive proteins as the eye—opsins—meaning that the skin itself can ‘see’ the surrounding colours and change colour accordingly.

You can read the rest of "Colourblind squid camouflage inspires Navy research", here.

Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 30 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

I considered calling this article, "Thanks for Proving My Point", but decided that the focus would be too limited.

The "Golden Rule" that most of us learned is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (derived from "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise", Luke 6.31). Another version has been said, "Know the Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules".

There is something else that I would like to put forth, a kind of "Golden Rule" for debates and discussions:

When entering debates or discussions, it is extremely helpful to define terms. Otherwise, you can be arguing about something that the other party understands differently. This is especially important when flexible words like "science" and "evolution" are being used. Some people mistakenly (and I believe some do this deliberately) will equivocate on the word "evolution"; they see change that has nothing to do with evolution, and then insist that it is evolution in action:

She was caught lying about having read yesterday's article, and disputing
what she read in the introduction — to her own embarrassment.

Bait-and-switch equivocation happens when people will say that natural selection or so-called "micro-evolution" validates goo-to-you macro-evolution. This is sometimes done as a mistake, but often to deceive and manipulate:

Someone insisted that both "science" and "evolution" are the same thing. This shows a terrible lack of comprehension of both science and evolution. My feeling is that it was an attempt at intimidation:

In addition to the abusive ad hominem, we have the fallacies of equivocation and assertion.

There are people who will make their own arbitrary definitions. This example is fallacious on several levels:

Again, erroneously equivocating "evolution" with "science", plus denigrating "creation" as "mythology".

Edit 2: What is a "hate group"? The term is designed to provoke negative emotions, and the definition depends on who is using the term.

Edit 1: I just heard this fine example of fallacious arbitrary (and convoluted) definitions on a podcast:

The supernatural, as far as I'm concerned, by definition, cannot exist, because if something exists within reality, no matter how strange the thing is that's existing within reality, it's part of reality and it's natural. To become supernatural, something has to be apart from reality, it has to be external to nature. As there is nothing that is external to nature, no matter how bizarre, then it's impossible in my mind for the supernatural to exist, it's illogical to believe it does...

Amazing. "Reality" is defined as naturalism. This makes atheism convenient for him because of his definition. He is also requiring "reality" to strictly adhere to what he is insisting to be "natural". By defining "reality" his own way, he is effectively creating his own reality to suit his atheistic worldview! That is not the sign of a healthy mind.

One reason I am not interested in debating is because people will rely on their own definitions, as well as changing their definitions. Also, I will not continue when someone is establishing their argument on obvious logical fallacies. I recommend that people define their terms before engaging in debates or lengthy discussions with atheists and evolutionists. When you see that they are not interested in being rational, it's time to find something productive to do.

Evolution Gets Undue Credit for Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 29 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

It's interesting how some evolutionists will claim that creationists "do not understand science". Well, when they act like "science" means, "Whatever excuses we can find to attribute to evolution", then we probably do not understand it. We prefer the proper definitions, and not the self-serving circular reasoning definitions that Darwin's Cheerleaders keep dreaming up at their convenience.

morgueFile/bosela

We frequently read some of these things as if evolution was some kind of intelligent entity or pantheistic religious view. To make matters worse, evolutionists will resort to a bait-and-switch on the meaning of the word "evolution". When change is observed, it will be erroneously called "evolution", but there was no evolution of any kind, under any legitimate definition. The sneaky part is where the word is equated with molecules-to-man evolution — and that is disingenuous at best.

Cockroaches avoiding glucose bait traps? Call it evolution. Flowers that close at night? They're more highly evolved. Turtle embryonic development? Give credit to evolution. But that is not science. It is, however, incompetent and perhaps even dishonest. And their stories are self-contradictory.

Evolution is one of the most carelessly-used words in science, as several recent articles show. Not all change is evolution the way Darwin meant it.

Roaches check in, and they also check out: Those omnivorous pests have outsmarted engineers again. Even though they like sugar in the wild, they have learned to avoid sugary-tasting poison in roach traps. Sure enough, you can watch the smarter bugs in a video clip on Live Science. Stephanie Pappas headlined the story, “Yikes! Cockroaches Evolved to Avoid Sugary Baits.” The authors of the paper in Science claimed that the German cockroaches “rapidly evolved an adaptive behavioral aversion to glucose.” They spoke of glucose aversion as a “gain of function adaptation” that “emerged” in their study population.

The scientists did not state, though, if the glucose-averse roaches represent a new species. Darwinian evolution is not just about changes of adaptive behavior within a species, but the arrival of new species. If the glucose-averse roaches are interfertile with the wild type, no evolution has occurred. In the Live Science article, furthermore, one of the paper’s authors admitted that glucose avoidance could have been an ancient trait that surfaced under the new environmental condition of encountering man-made bait traps. “Some plants produce toxic bittersweet compounds that roaches would have needed to avoid before humans came around.”

Even worse, the glucose-avoiding roaches may be less healthy. In Science Daily, that same co-author admitted they grow more slowly in the lab without the environmental stress. “Cockroaches have to adapt to a varied and unreliable food supply, and glucose-aversion places an additional restriction on obtaining adequate nutrition.” In any case, this is certainly not a case supporting Darwinian evolution—universal common ancestry via natural selection.

You can make your computer evolve and finish reading "Roach Bait Story Highlights Abuse of Word 'Evolution'"

More Evolution in Medical Science — Bad Idea

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Tue, 28 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

One of the religious tenets of evolutionism is that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”. But this is patently false because biology makes more sense without evolution. Worse, evolution has been detrimental to medicine, as well as to science and society.

stock.xchng/Kurhan

Yet some people are pushing evolution (under the guise of "science") to have more emphasis in medical schooling. Educators do not have time for that, because they not only have their time taken up with observable, practical science, but the historical speculations of evolutionism have no value. The Evo Sith will do whatever it takes to indoctrinate people into their false belief system, n'est pas?

Should medical educators clutter the busy course schedule that medical students must master with additional instruction in evolution? The clamor to do so is not new. While many physicians surely believe in evolutionary claims, most don’t find that those beliefs enhance their day-to-day ability to care for sick people in any practical sort of way. Recently there has been some media attention directed to those who crusade to make medical students learn not only how everything in the human body works but also the evolutionary history of how each human innovation evolved through the ages. Will teaching medical students more evolutionary beliefs, if it ever catches on, produce better physicians?
Evolution is not emphasized in most medical schools. Medical educators have a great deal to teach to budding physicians in a short time. (The time spent in actual instruction upon entering medical school is a bit of a shock to many students fresh from their college undergraduate programs.) Therefore, in the packed curricula of medical schools, the most expendable item is evolution.

You do not need an appointment to finish reading "Do Medical Schools Need To Teach More Evolution?"

Audio Extra — Atheism, Evolution and Science

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sun, 26 May 2013 11:00:00 +0000

It has been well-established here and elsewhere that evolution is a foundation for atheism. Since atheists and humanists (humanism is the more blatant form of religious atheism) cannot account for the origins and development of life without God, they rely on naturalistic presuppositions. When the science fails, they make stuff up to keep the faith.

Creationist ministries and organizations (as well as the Intelligent Design movement) are growing. (And why not? The science is on our side!) Some Christians are putting some serious effort into learning about science, philosophy, logic, theology and so on to be able to present the truth.

Atheists hate that.

The days of the "live and let live" atheists seem to be gone. At least, those atheists do not spend time on the Interweb, and the so-called "New Atheists" are the ones that we encounter. There has been an increase in vituperative attacks, defamation, libel and more. They show their intolerance of Christianity with totalitarian attitudes. But atheopaths have not learned to use logic and reason (which they claim to embrace), relying instead on bad thinking, emotionalism and manipulation.

Here are three recordings, the first two are about twelve minutes each. First, a segment of a CARM broadcast from "Matt Slick Live" (entire April 30, 2013 broadcast here), where "Tom from Georgia" as asking about the increasing anger and irrationality of atheists:

A few days after I heard that podcast, I called Matt myself and wanted to compare notes and share some of my experiences on the subject. My version is edited (entire May 10, 2013 broadcast here):

The third recording is longer. On Thursday, May 23, I contacted Mike Shoesmith of PPSIMMONS to follow up on a comment that he had made back in February about having me on PPSIMMONS Radio. His response was enthusiastic, "Maybe this weekend". Great! On Saturday at 18.15, his mail arrived, asking if I could do it that day. I was a bit startled and my mind was elsewhere, working on a post for the following week. But sure, why not?
We were connected on Skype just after 18.30. Hey, no time for me to panic and over-prepare like I've done in the past, so that's good. The show is 43 minutes, but our call was twice that, since we hit it off and talked before and after the recording (they are planning on doing live radio at some point, as well as television). It sounds more like a conversation than a formal interview. I did stammer a bit, trying to regain my derailed train of thought (it happens to me sometimes). Once I was looking for a file while I was talking, and won't do that again.
Anyway, here's the link to the recording. Not my most concise presentation, but we covered some valuable material, including science, logic, definitions, theistic evolution, biblical authority and more. Hope you like it.

John Anster Fitzgerald's work modified into "The Fairyland of Darwinism"

Audio Saturday: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 25 May 2013 11:00:00 +0000

Some people are not keeping up with science, and yet try to defend evolutionism. When told that soft tissues have been found, some will say that it's a trick by lying creationists trying to get you to believe in a holy God that hates lying (makes perfect sense). Others say that it's just plain wrong, from an outdated study that lying or over-enthusiastic but uninformed creationists are using — you get the idea. Soft tissues should not even exist if they were as old as evolutionists want to believe. Denial is natural when your evolutionary presuppositions are shown to be radically wrong.

The fact is, there are many reports of soft tissues being found and analyzed. Today's audio feature also has some impressive documentation. Click here to download the audio and see the article.

Penguins, Evolution and Tall Tales

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 24 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

A while ago, I posted an article about the amazing design of penguins' ability to swim. Now there's something even more amazing: Stories about how they evolved. There are claims that the puzzle of penguin evolution are "solved".

stock.xchng/saito

There is a great deal of conjecture and outright guesswork, but nothing that resembles actual science. It makes much more sense to believe that penguins were actually designed the way they are, instead of making up tall tales to fit evolutionary presuppositions. After all, the fossil record is still a hostile witness to evolution.

Penguins are superb swimmers, well adapted to their Antarctic climate. They use their wings to “fly” in a different fluid—water, not air. The sight of a swarm of penguins darting through the water under the ice with speed and grace makes for dramatic film footage. Most of the major science news sites (e.g., BBC News, National Geographic, Science Now, Nature News, New Scientist) are claiming that the “puzzle” of penguin flightlessness has been “solved” in a new study published in PNAS. Earlier theories suggested that the lack of predators led to flightlessness, or that evolution had a hard time producing a wing that was good at both flying and swimming.

An international team took a different approach. They measured the energy demands of flight. There’s no question that maintaining flight in the air is costly. Some birds, like cormorants and penguins, are good at both. But if aerial flight is not required for successful feeding, a bird could focus its wings, feet, and other body parts on just the swimming.

You can read the rest of "The Evolution of Penguins", here.

Continental Erosion Observations and the Global Flood Model

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 22 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Tibetan Plateau - Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC

Actualist and uniformitarian geologists are having to deal with more and more evidence for the global Flood. Current geology does not adequately explain observational evidence, including the coarse gravel sheets in south-central Asia. Rapid continental erosion and uplifts of mountains fit some creationist models.

Tall erosional remnants indicate rapid, continent-wide erosion, which is consistent with the Retreating Stage of the Flood. While the floodwaters were retreating and eroding the continents, resistant rocks were transported long distances, as has been documented for the United States. A similar pattern of coarse gravel transport is evident in the mountains of south-central Asia. These areas are south of the Himalayas, north of the Tibetan Plateau, all around the Tian Shan Mountains, southwest of the Zagros Mountains, and east of the Tibetan Plateau on the west edge of the Sichuan basin. The character of the coarse gravel shed from the rising south-central Asian mountains is best interpreted within the Retreating Stage of the Flood, which also implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very ‘late Cenozoic’ in this area, assuming the uniformitarian timescale.

During the Retreating Stage of the Flood, continents and mountains rose above the floodwaters while the ocean basins and valleys sank, causing the waters to flow off the continents (Psalm 104:6–9). During the Retreating Stage, the runoff first caused sheet erosion as the continents rose, which transformed progressively, starting at higher altitudes first, into channelized flow. The channels were probably relatively wide at first (c. 75 km wide), and by the end of the Flood they were relatively narrow (c. 2 km wide). There is abundant geomorphological evidence for this runoff event, which occurred between Day 150 and 371 of the Flood, but the evidence is very difficult for uniformitarian scientists to explain.

Mounting evidence is increasingly portraying the Retreating Stage of the Flood as a period of continental erosion, so most of the sedimentary rocks left behind were likely deposited during the early part of the Flood, before Day 150.

To finish reading, rock on over to "Retreating Stage formation of gravel sheets in south-central Asia".

What About Humans and Dinosaurs Fossilized Together?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Some people will smugly ask, "If dinosaurs and humans lived together, why don't we find their fossils in the same strata?", as if this was a "smoking gun" refutation of Flood geology. Their "Gotcha!" question actually shows how little they know about paleontology (and conveniently ignores evidence that humans and dinosaurs did indeed live at the same time).

Fossilization is actually quite rare. Of the billions of fossils, the overwhelming majority are shallow marine organisms, trees, plants, algae and so on. This is testimony to catastrophic flooding. For actual vertebrates, the percentage of their fossils is one quarter of one percent. When looking for vertebrate fossils that consist of more than one bone, the number shrinks dramatically. Fossils of humans and other mammals are extremely rare.

Further, the question itself is based on a logical fallacy. Remember the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (or, argument from silence). These scarce fossils would have to be found and then identified. And would evolutionists actually admit to finding them, since it would add another nail in the coffin of the evolutionary worldview?

Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent on Earth; humans have inhabited, and continue to inhabit, every continent on Earth. Thus, it would seem that if dinosaurs and humans really did live as contemporaries at one time, as creationists contend, human fossils would have been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. So, is there evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?

Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling, at least on the surface. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Furthermore, many ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth. Still, many wonder why, at first glance, the fossil record seems not to substantiate creationists’ claims that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries?

You really should read the rest of "Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?" in context. It makes some excellent points.

Who Owns the Rights to Science?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Count the fallacies!
Also, Twitter "Tweets" are public. They said so.

People have a serious misunderstanding of the nature, origin and purpose of science. It is a method, a tool for acquiring knowledge. The definition of science cannot be determined by science, nor can any of the scientific methods. These definitions are philosophical in nature. When there are arbitrary, self-serving assertions such as, "You must be an atheist to use science", the entire process is misunderstood. Many people cannot differentiate between operational science and historical science. Further, many will equivocate "science" with "evolution", leading to the fabrication that evolution is science and misleading people who do not know the difference.

Like the silly assertion above, I have had people say that Christians cannot do science because of their worldview. A scientist's belief in creation does not negate his or her ability to perform actual science. One of the most baffling remarks I ever encountered was when I pointed out that there are creationists involved in space missions. The comment was along the lines of, "If I was 200 miles above the Earth, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of someone who believes in a Bronze Age book". Aside from the bigotry, it was also prejudicial conjecture and a circumstantial ad hominem.

Other people have made silly assertions such as, "You hate science, so you have no right to use a computer, which was made by atheists!" Uh, right, Buttercup. Except it's fallacious. And no, we do not hate science, we just will not allow you to equivocate science with evolution.

morgueFile/cohdra

When returning from an appointment with Steve the auto mechanic, I realized that he is a scientist! Think about it. He observes a phenomenon (my "brake" light was on), relies on his training, experience, skills, intelligence and integrity (he could have used his superior knowledge to cheat me, others have done this in the past). He has solved problems for both my wife and me, and even found ways to avoid charging our belabored bank accounts unnecessary amounts. Steve is a Christian, and I do not think he believes in evolution. I do not know for sure. Why? Because his belief in origins does not affect his ability to perform the science of being a mechanic!

Despite the painfully obvious facts, secularists insist that atheism belongs to them, and that Christians are unable to do science stuff. (Atheists even seem to think that they "own" dinosaurs!) They have a woefully inadequate understanding of science and its history.

Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies. But is this really the case, or are these opponents of a biblical worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?

A friend of the ministry was recently challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is.

I fully believe that you would do well to read the rest of "Is Science Secular?"